Tweet
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
December 1, 2006 Friday
"THE COMMONWEALTH WILL INEVITABLY SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS"
by Alexander Dugin
POLITICAL SCIENTIST ALEXANDER DUGIN: THE COMMONWEALTH WILL GIVE WAY
TO TWO NEW ALLIANCES; Political scientist Dugin believes that the
Commonwealth is on the verge of collapse.
The Commonwealth is rapidly approaching the worst crisis in its
history. To all appearances, it is not a single alliance anymore.
There are two of them in it. There are two factions within the
Commonwealth nowadays, and their views on the CIS future and their
own objectives are diametrically opposite. These factions coexist for
the time being, but this state of affairs cannot last. The moment of
disintegration of the Commonwealth into two alliances is getting
closer.
One of the future alliances may be branded as Eurasian. It will
comprise the states that maintain friendly relations with Russia and
that are determined to advance rapprochement of sisterly nations.
They are Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and
Armenia. Essentially, all of that comprises the nucleus of a future
strategic world power, Eurasian Union, and perhaps even of the
Eurasian Confederation afterwards. Remaining sovereign and fortifying
national self-identities, these countries have opted for unity and
integration. They view the Commonwealth itself as an instrument of
rapprochement and reunification.
The other faction consists of GUAM or an alliance of Georgia,
Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. Their agenda is wholly different.
These countries aspire for integration into the European Union but
the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the latter compels them to
entertain the hope of joining NATO. The Americans actively encourage
and feed these hopes, since they themselves need their military bases
as close to the Russian borders as possible - and the sooner the
better. These countries regard the CIS as an instrument of divorce
and want to part company with Russia and Eurasian states for the sake
of integration with the West. Not all of these countries are equally
industrious about it. It is Saakashvili and Yushchenko (presidents of
Georgia and Ukraine) who are undeniable GUAM leaders nowadays while
Voronin and Aliyev (Moldova and Azerbaijan) are less sure of the
expediency of disintegration of the Commonwealth. Uzbekistan's
withdrawal from GUAM only reinforced their fears that what they are
doing is correct. In fact, Moldova and Azerbaijan are afraid of
finding themselves in nationalist Romania and kremalist Turkey
instead of prosperous Europe.
It may be added here that unlike Eurasian countries, all GUAM member
states are facing problems with separatist regions. Georgia has to
deal with runaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In Ukraine, the Crimean
crisis is fomenting and the matter of federalization of eastern
regions is rising. Moldova has to deal with the Trans-Dniester
region, the province that aspires for membership in the Russian
Federation. Azerbaijan has Nagorno-Karabakh, the territory that is
its territory only in theory.
What's the conclusion then? The CIS member states standing with
Russia are free of territorial problems and problems with runaway
provinces. Territorial problems haunt precisely the CIS countries
that are anti-Russian and that aspire for NATO membership. Here is
the First Law of the post-Soviet zone then. Whoever is with Russia is
fine and dandy. Whoever is against it may lose some of their
territories. Because Russia is the guarantor of post-Soviet
countries' territorial integrity.
Trying to consolidate sovereign post-Soviet states, Putin is careful
to take into account their domestic democratic models and preserve
their national features in the common strategic zone. This is what
enlightened Putin's imperialism is about.
Policy of enlightened imperialism has only one weak spot - domestic
nationalism that nullifies all enlightened and legitimate nature of
sanctions against, say, Saakashvili, that transforms the sanctions
into persecution of Georgians by ethnic principle.
Source: Trud, November 29, 2006, p. 3
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
December 1, 2006 Friday
"THE COMMONWEALTH WILL INEVITABLY SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS"
by Alexander Dugin
POLITICAL SCIENTIST ALEXANDER DUGIN: THE COMMONWEALTH WILL GIVE WAY
TO TWO NEW ALLIANCES; Political scientist Dugin believes that the
Commonwealth is on the verge of collapse.
The Commonwealth is rapidly approaching the worst crisis in its
history. To all appearances, it is not a single alliance anymore.
There are two of them in it. There are two factions within the
Commonwealth nowadays, and their views on the CIS future and their
own objectives are diametrically opposite. These factions coexist for
the time being, but this state of affairs cannot last. The moment of
disintegration of the Commonwealth into two alliances is getting
closer.
One of the future alliances may be branded as Eurasian. It will
comprise the states that maintain friendly relations with Russia and
that are determined to advance rapprochement of sisterly nations.
They are Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and
Armenia. Essentially, all of that comprises the nucleus of a future
strategic world power, Eurasian Union, and perhaps even of the
Eurasian Confederation afterwards. Remaining sovereign and fortifying
national self-identities, these countries have opted for unity and
integration. They view the Commonwealth itself as an instrument of
rapprochement and reunification.
The other faction consists of GUAM or an alliance of Georgia,
Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. Their agenda is wholly different.
These countries aspire for integration into the European Union but
the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the latter compels them to
entertain the hope of joining NATO. The Americans actively encourage
and feed these hopes, since they themselves need their military bases
as close to the Russian borders as possible - and the sooner the
better. These countries regard the CIS as an instrument of divorce
and want to part company with Russia and Eurasian states for the sake
of integration with the West. Not all of these countries are equally
industrious about it. It is Saakashvili and Yushchenko (presidents of
Georgia and Ukraine) who are undeniable GUAM leaders nowadays while
Voronin and Aliyev (Moldova and Azerbaijan) are less sure of the
expediency of disintegration of the Commonwealth. Uzbekistan's
withdrawal from GUAM only reinforced their fears that what they are
doing is correct. In fact, Moldova and Azerbaijan are afraid of
finding themselves in nationalist Romania and kremalist Turkey
instead of prosperous Europe.
It may be added here that unlike Eurasian countries, all GUAM member
states are facing problems with separatist regions. Georgia has to
deal with runaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In Ukraine, the Crimean
crisis is fomenting and the matter of federalization of eastern
regions is rising. Moldova has to deal with the Trans-Dniester
region, the province that aspires for membership in the Russian
Federation. Azerbaijan has Nagorno-Karabakh, the territory that is
its territory only in theory.
What's the conclusion then? The CIS member states standing with
Russia are free of territorial problems and problems with runaway
provinces. Territorial problems haunt precisely the CIS countries
that are anti-Russian and that aspire for NATO membership. Here is
the First Law of the post-Soviet zone then. Whoever is with Russia is
fine and dandy. Whoever is against it may lose some of their
territories. Because Russia is the guarantor of post-Soviet
countries' territorial integrity.
Trying to consolidate sovereign post-Soviet states, Putin is careful
to take into account their domestic democratic models and preserve
their national features in the common strategic zone. This is what
enlightened Putin's imperialism is about.
Policy of enlightened imperialism has only one weak spot - domestic
nationalism that nullifies all enlightened and legitimate nature of
sanctions against, say, Saakashvili, that transforms the sanctions
into persecution of Georgians by ethnic principle.
Source: Trud, November 29, 2006, p. 3